Tuesday, October 17, 2006

Standardization of Iluko Spelling

I know this entry could get me shot and lambasted, because, for some reason, the topic is quite sensitive. I had considered keeping mum about it — I had thought it’s safer that way — but I eventually decided against staying silent, for to keep quiet when there is something that needs to be said is cowardice and, in some occasions, may be dangerous. As I am not a coward and, more importantly, because zipping up my lips would be an act unbecoming of a naturally talkative and opinionated person like myself, I am finally offering my humble opinion on the subject.

The issue I’m talking about is Iluko Standardization (spelling).

In my socio-linguistics class last semester, I proposed Iluko Standardization (spelling) as the focus of my research. I wanted to evaluate the orthography of different iluko publications, determine their differences, and hopefully recommend, based on some categories I would later design, which of these spelling systems could be used as standard.

By standard, I mean, the form to be adapted in publication and formal written communications. Designating a form as standard does not in any way mean that the other forms are “substandard” or inferior. It only means that the standard form is more widely used or accepted for business transactions and formal communications.

As the issue of spelling in any language is rather “hot,” I did not have a hard time convincing my professor of the merits of the study. And having been given the go signal to work on it, I embarked on researching the existing Iluko publications, with the help of my father. I had even asked Dad to help me set up appointments with the editors, some of whom he personally knew; and I likewise made preliminary arrangements in my schedule, in anticipation of several travels I thought I was going to make (to Regions 1, 2, and CAR) to meet with the editors.

My and my father's preliminary efforts, however, yielded the following information:
· Rimat, which spelled several words differently, had already folded up, enabling Bannawag to maintain its status as the most-read Iluko publication.
· Most, if not all, books published by GUMIL follow Bannawag spelling.
· A bible using Bannawag spelling is under way.
· The papers in NV (I didn’t get to check the Iluko papers in other Iluko-speaking provinces) are published and/or edited by Bannawag-influenced editors.

With this preliminary information, I went back to my professor and told him I needed to change my topic, because it was already a non-issue. I believe that there is already an established Iluko orthography — all but needing formal recognition — and that is Bannawag’s, whether we choose to accept it or not. This is because, where orthography is concerned, it is that form used by the widest circulating publication that prevails.

And while at first I was not quite happy with the situation — quite understandably, I hope — for, after a month of working on my research design, I suddenly found myself without a research problem (as my problem seemed no longer a problem), I think this scenario is actually good for the language, because it means Iluko has come a long way.

As for me, I’ve made another proposal, which luckily was approved outright. And that is, to find how different the Iluko spoken by the NOW generation is to that spoken by their parents and by their grandparents. I’ve noticed that there are forms used by older people that the younger people don’t know about (except those who write in Iluko).*

At first I wanted to do a study of the different forms used in different provinces (dialectal differences) but that is already dialectology, not a socio-linguistic study. Besides, that’s something I can’t finish in three months. Moreover, it would require funding, a lot of help (informants), and time — all of which I don't have at the moment. Sigh!


*[Case in point: My Iluko which, I think, belongs to the now generation (Manang Linda Lingbaoan calls it pop iluko). I find my Iluko very narabaw. This sometimes frustrates the struggling writer in me because I noticed that to many, the mark of a good Iluko work is the use of nauneg or old forms. Old iluko seems elegant. And while I sometimes strive to learn the old forms, the rebel in me resents it. The old form isn’t the Iluko that I grew up with. It’s not the Iluko that I speak. Hence, the moment I write using that form, my writing ceases to reflect me.]

Or may be I just don't have a good grasp of the language — that maybe I am one of those native speakers who somehow are not literate enough to write in their native language?

16 comments:

Joe Padre said...

Dear Fulltime bully, occasional bitch, parttime writer,

See, I love your spunk already. Comusta ca, Sherma, Adingco.

The issue about "Iluko Standardization" should never have surfaced in the first place for the very simple reasons I cited in my blog post, "The Intellectualization of Ilocano" and elsewhere in the blog (ilocano-samtoy.blogspot.com) and for the reasons so eloquently expounded by Jim Agpalo, Jr. in the Iluko.com thread, "Standardization Iti Iluko" (http://iluko.com/forum02_responses.asp?TopicID=2),

The intellectualization of Ilocano, using the parameters in Bonifacio Sibayan's article, "The Intellectualization of Filipino", perhaps will take a backseat for the moment because the folks at the Komisyon sa Wikang Filipino have all the resources to make sure Ilocano stays in the outer fringes of language power, NOT Center Stage. After all, they have a constitutional mandate to develop Filipino as the national language (side by side with English, per the 1987 Constitution).

Just a bit of history here: Before Bannawag switched to the 20-letter TAGALOG ABAKADA sometime in the late 50s or early 60s, it was using a streamlined orthography using the Spanish alphabet (quet became ket, aoan became awan, daguiti became dagiti, etc.). Well, you were born after the switch was made and educated using the 20-letter ABAKADA in both Ilocano and Pilipino, now Filipino. But guess what, the KWF woke up to reality for the reasons cited in the "2001 Revisyon ng Alfabeto at Patnubay sa Ispeling ng Wikang Filipino," the full text of which I published in my blog, 2001revisyon.blogspot.com. And so KWF added these eight letters, C, F, J, Ñ, Q, V, X, Z, to the 20-letter Tagalog ABAKADA. In effect, KWF tossed out the Tagalog ABAKADA and re-adopted the old Spanish Alphabet, retaining only the digraph NG from the Tagalog alphabet. So Ilocano, being one of the Philippine languages that adopted the 20-letter Tagalog alphabet (the Chavacanos didn't), apparently following KWF's wishes, should also come to the same realization that the KWF has per the 2001 Revision and re-adopt the same 28-letter alphabet (A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, Ñ, NG, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z) that Filipino is using NOW. I think Bannawag will eventually re-adopt this 28-letter alphabet if it ever will support the eventual intellectualization of Ilocano. I think Bannawag's [and our Ilocano writers'] adherence to the old (obsolete?) 20-letter Tagalog is outright pretentious because a rather large percentage of our people's first and/or last names are Spanish in origin and they continue to be spelled using the Spanish alphabet, with the exception of Lope K. Santos, who being the "nationalist" that he was had his middle name changed from Canseco to Kanseco.

Now, using those 28 letters instead of only 20 makes sense: you have 8 more tools in expanding the lexicon of the adopting language--whether through borrowing from English and Spanish, or borrowing from the other local languages such as "fotelya" (bottle), "afung" (house), "chanum" (water), "laychum" (like it) from Bontoc; "shalan" (pathway), "shakshalean" (footbridge), "jamjam" (to scold), "japasan" (dismounting point) from Ibalaoi; "viay" (life) from Batanes' Ivatan; "gafin" (reason), and "vulva" (one) from Itawes.

Language as you know evolves rather very quickly and code switching is hip (just go to youtube.com and listen to "Philippine Idol" videos). So how are you going to standardize all that? I prefer rules of common usage to standardization simply because rules are meant to be broken. Standards are more rigid. And standardizing the language could, as Jim Agpalo suggests, be an infringement of one's freedom of speech.

Now, if I could be of any help for a more useful, relevant thesis project, I would perhaps shift the discussion to the use of mother-tongue based schooling for educational quality as discussed by Carol Benson in one of the related articles cited in my 2001revision blog. [Hint: the 1987 Constitution also provides that the regional language (Ilocano, or Cebuano, or Bikol, or Hiligaynon, etc.) be used as the auxilliary medium of instruction in the regional area where it is spoken.] A Filipina linguistics expert tells me there are existing advocacy groups trying to lobby the use of mother-tongue based schooling. This should make the playing field a little more even, instead of stacking it in favor of the Tagalog-speaking populace, as KWF is doing now. And if we are to let this go unchecked, some Philippine languages may just die a natural death, one by one by one by one... In fact, as we speak, some Filipino languages have become extinct, and along went their culture.

Joe Padre said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Joe Padre said...

"Narabaw" and "nauneg" are relative. As a communications person, you know that the object of communication is the transfer of an idea/concept in the context that the communicator has in mind to the communicatee. But you know fully well that the communicatee has all these wonderful filters acquired since birth (did I read it somewhere that some even think that the doctor slapping, or not slapping one's behind at birth could be a factor!) and they tend to impact the degree of success of the communication process. And so the original idea/concept intended to be communicated, poor thing, undergoes some morphing, sometimes in some context diametrically opposed to the original context. A perfect reason, for instance, to write your "Open Letter" post a while back.

(Personally, I prefer clarity to "nauneg" for the obvious reason that I feel that it is my primary responsibility to lessen the collective effect of those "filters" if I want to be understood. Even so, I have my share of failures, and they are many.)

Your post here is so well-written. I think I understand where you're going. However, if my prior comments (filtered through my own experiences) reflect a misunderstanding of the intended idea or concept you wish to communicate, well, that's why we write blogs where we ruminate...

Don't despair! Don't you wish we could bully our way through it all?

If we were only endowed with Harry Potteresque powers...

Anonymous said...

very interesting idea. i love the 20 letters. it brings the "aweng ti away"

brainteaser said...

Hello Manong Joe! Thanks for visiting my blog, and more especially, for your interest in this post (Iluko Standardization).

You have raised quite a lot of points, all of which deserve to be fully discussed. I’ll try Manong to share something in each of the points you raised.


1. Narabaw versus nauneg.

In my usage of the word nauneg, I was referring loosely to both words not commonly used and those that are old. While narabaw is the opposite of nauneg, there is something more to my usage of the word. In my usage of the word narabaw, I was talking of a limited linguistic repertoire. So when I said, “My Iluko is narabaw,” I was saying that my stock of Iluko lexicon is limited — it lacks (1) nauneg forms which would help me make my Iluko writing more profound and (2) enough stock of forms that could singly capture a concept or a referent. (Sometimes, I use three or several words to refer to something when a single word would have sufficed. At other times, I use a word, only to realize later on that another word is more suitable to my desired tone or meaning, or to the structure I used.)


2. History of Bannawag orthograpy

It was only recently that I learned the history of the orthography used by Bannawag (through my discussion with Manong Cles Rambaud, while I was doing preliminary data gathering for my original topic of standardization). Indeed, Bannawag used to use Hispanic spelling of Iluko (quet, daguiti, kencuana….).

I am of course familiar with the old spelling system. My grandparents still use it. Also, I own an Iluko bible, the orthography of which follows the old spelling system. But yes, having been born after the shift (from the old to the present system), I don’t write using that system.


3. luko shifting to 28-letter alphabet

This is where, Manong, that I think we have differing views. Please let me defend my position.

Why did the KMF find it necessary to shift from the 20-letter ABAKADA to the 28-letter system?

The ABAKADA suits Tagalog, a regional language, but not Filipino, the national language. The sounds present in Tagalog are represented fully in the ABAKADA system. This system, however, is inadequate to represent the sounds Filipino has. This is because, while Filipino is based on Tagalog, it is being enriched so that it will have elements from all the existing Philippine languages as well as from foreign languages (1987 constitution). This enrichment is being done so that Filipino will ultimately evolve very differently from Tagalog.

So there is actually a demand for Filipino to be different from Tagalog and to incorporate elements from other languages. One way of incorporating elements from other Philippine and non-Philippine languages is “adopting” words and sounds from these languages.

Some Philippine languages, it was found out, do have sounds not in the Tagalog ABAKADA system. Classic examples are /f/ anf /v/.

Let me copy&paste here a summary I made years ago of a study on these sounds:

A paper written by American linguist Carlos Everett Conant, “F” and “V” in Philippine Languages (1908) reveals that some Philippine languages possess the surd spirant /f/ and the sonant spirant /v/.

The Surd Fricative f
In the southern group of f languages (languages that possess the f sound), the p sound does not exist and is changed to spirant f. Even the p in foreign words is pronounced as f. The b sound, on the other hand, remains unchanged.
p  f
b  b

In the northern group of f languages, both p and f exist, and their use depends on certain conditions. One of these conditions is as follows: b becomes v in Ibanag and Itawi
b becomes f in Bontoc Igorot

The f of these languages is a pure labial fricative and is slightly breathed, much like the Japanese f before u. It is not labio-dental as the English f.


The Sonant Fricative v
This sound is only heard in the Ibanag speech area (Ibanag, Itawi, and Yogad). The v in these languages is pure labial.

In Ibanag, b becomes v before u. This rule, however, is not shared by the other v languages. In Itawi, the v sound interchanges with b, and is commonly heard before a vowel. In Yogad, v is persistent even before u.

The adoption of the other letters z, c, j, q, x, z, I think, is to incorporate sounds from other languages used in the country, albeit non-Philippine.

Does Iluko have this same need as Filipino?

I don’t think so. There is a demand for Filipino because (1) it is the national language and (2) there are allegations that it (or its predecessor, Pilipino) is the same as Tagalog. Iluko is neither the national language nor is there a need for it to become something else.

I don’t think Iluko should change its spelling system merely because Filipino had. If ever it should (this I will discuss later), it would have to be for (a) different reason(s).

While it is true that our surnames are Hispanic, I don’t think we should go back to the old spelling system. I think it is impractical do so. Whether then Surian ng Wikang Pambansa was right in making the “order” to shift to the current spelling system or not is no longer the issue. We are already here; our spelling system now uses the ABAKADA system. We now spell quet as ket, daguiti as dagiti, kadacuada as kadakuada. We are so far gone to go back.

What I think the language needs now is to come up with a system of how it should incorporate borrowed words, mostly English. Must we re-spell (e.g., office = ofis; association = asosyeysyon); “Ilokanize” borrowed words (office = opis; association = asosasion); or write English forms as they are (office = office; association = association)?

How about when borrowed words need to be affixed. How do we write them? Examples: (in-fax-ko, infaxko, in-faxko, impaxko; nagklasifay, nag-classify, nagclassify, nagklasipay)?

So if we are to change our spelling system, it would be to accommodate foreign words being incorporated in spoken Iluko.


4. Your point that Iluko standardization “should never have surfaced in the first place…”

Manong, let me read muna your blog and the reasons you have presented before I comment on this issue. At the moment, I think standardization is necessary but while I have reasons for believing so, let me understand first where you are coming from before defending my position on the issue.


4. Iluko on the center stage

Are we talking about the national level, or local level?

On the national level, I don’t think Iluko can be in the center stage as it is not our national language. As much as I would love that our language would attain such status, fact is that it has not. So I don’t think we can expect Iluko to be in the center stage on the national level.

At the local level, however, I think that Iluko deserves more emphasis than it is receiving now. Children in Iluko-speaking communities, especially those in the primary level (grades 1 to 4, or at least grades 1-3) should be taught using their native language.

You are right manong that there are advocacy groups lobbying the use of Iluko, especially in these levels. This is backed by results of studies which showed that children taught in their native language grasp the concept easier and fare better in evaluations than do children taught using the second language.

I quite agree with these groups.


Manong Joe, I’m not sure no nasungbatak amin a puntos mon. Saan sa pay, kabsat. But I will try some other time. Thank you fro dropping by and let’s just keep sharing our opinions on the topic(s). I’m sure we will learn from each other.

//sherma

brainteaser said...

Oooops. Adda symbols nga inusar ko. Di met nagparang.

Under /f/ language

b becomes f
b remains b

kunana koma. I was able to edit the /v/ languages. I think.

brainteaser said...

Hello, Manontondalan. Thanks for dropping by. Gayyem. Do join us ditoy discussion. :-)

//sherma

Anonymous said...

if you step out of the northern mountains of the philippines and sail east you'll be amaze that this
profound sounding "f" in dialects is same as the samoans of the pacific or polynisians as well as "V" ha-va-i(hawaii). could it be the sailors of the pacific has traveled our shores? could be, the original iluko abc is same as the polynisians....ooops i'm offside sorry.
i'm learning i could do same in pangasinan. we have a word for pc already ketab/ virus-keta.

Joe Padre said...

If you are a trailblazer and you are given the choice between using (a) a bolo and a shovel, or (b) a bulldozer and grading equipment, what, may I ask, would the sensible trailblazer in you choose? Exactly my point.

Anonymous said...

no maysa ka a uramdalan ket naikkan ka ti gundaway nga agpili ti kayat mo nga aramaten buneng wenno pala, durondaga wenno simpadaga,anya saludsudek koma, anya a kas mannakatarus nga uramdalan ti piliem.dayta ti makunak.

ni mayat met gayam nga usaren ti 20 nga abk tano ipatarus mo sao ti puraw...aaay natarusak tay ipalpaltiing mo manong.ngem diyak matarusan no apay nga kasla yo bekbekelen ti panagayos ti kapanunutan nga apadapada ti panagsurat ti iloko. no siak napintas data a banag.kasatnon ton
no rumsua ti "ILI TI ILOKOS" (REPUBLIC OF ILOCOS).

Joe Padre said...

Manonton Dalan: Kinapudnona, diac naawantan no ania ti cayatmo a sawen. But in the interest of steering the discussion away from where I think it is going, I'm conceding the point to you. See, I'm too easy. You win!

Anonymous said...

manong joe ladingitek sabalin sa ti sagat ko. saan nga nangabak ka wenno nangabakak, bayat ti panagbasak kasta ti pannakataros ko apo. naibleng sa ti digo na idi inarikap ko tay sao ti puraw. manong agyamanak tay panangbusbus mo
ti bimmalitok nga panawen yo nga sungbatan toy mailislisi. dispensar
manong.

Joe Padre said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Joe Padre said...

Hello Sherma, my Wicked Angel,

I don't know if you have visited ilocano-samtoy.blogspot.com lately. Hope I didn't say something offensive, or whatever, somewhere that caused you to stop visiting any of my blogs.

But in case you're interested to know the reasons why I continue to spell my Ilocano the way I do, you may drop by.

That post, "Ilocano orthography revisited", grew out of a comment left by AllanG in my "alucon" post at "...Toy Jardinco Umoc ni Ayat".

Lumabasac pay ngarud, Ading...

brainteaser said...

hey, manong joe,
not at all, kabsat. Just that my schedule has become so hectic. I didn't expect it, pero sobra.

Will post a comment re: this post inton mawayaak bassit.

Anonymous said...

I have a story to tell here -re: use and pronunciation of some letters: in English, Tagalog, Iluko or whatever. It may not be academic but we may pick an idea or two.

///

There was a telephone call for Fe, thus Felipe (Phillip) called her wife to get the call downstairs.

“Fe daRLling, teleFone” in a sing song of love and affection. He called several times but Fe seemed to be out of earshot.

Felipe then yelled. “Pi, tilipun!” and out Fe came with that ‘nakaraman’ sing song... “Yes my dear Felife?”

“Tilipunu kunak ket! FelEfe ka la a FelEfe, Felipe kunam a torFe!” and Phillip muttered ... “wish I can ‘spAnk’ your letter-F.”... only to find out in his mirror image that he is just as colour-changeable and sticky tongued as a chameleon!

NOW...don’t accuse me going counter clockwise here guys but we better arrive onto something viable for the Iluko language? What’s wrong with the Bannawag orthography anyway?

Howrrrlll. Sowie...its just the Tatang of me hehehehe!